In liberal societies, like those in the West, constitutions have been drawn up to protect the rights of individuals, and so the rights of minority groups. The state’s influence on the life of its citizens has diminished, and has been replaced by individual self-determination in a growing number of areas (freedom of speech, religion, convention, and in some countries same sex marriage, euthanasia and abortion). In these secular societies, an elected parliament ensures that governance is in line with the constitution and the preferences of the majority. The rule of the majority, though, is the second best solution to guard civil liberties: the tide may turn against individual freedom.

When not under pressure to adapt and confirm, the absence of authoritarian rule brings individual diversity and uniqueness to the surface. Individuals are not hindered in their intellectual and emotional development, and choose diverse paths in life. The divergence creates a breeding ground for inventions and a stimulating atmosphere of possibilities. This liberty, though, comes at a cost, as with everything. Liberty does not flourish without responsibility, tolerance and consideration. Those who want to be free are to continuously contemplate on their behaviour. Self-restriction and compromises are necessary to avoid becoming a freedom fundamentalist, and to maintain support from the majority.

There is a continuous friction between individualism and authoritarian rule. The advantages of the one are the disadvantages of the other. Individualism takes into account to a lesser extent the natural differences among human beings. As individualism strongly depends on awareness and rationality, not everyone will be able to carry the responsibility that comes with the freedom. Authoritarianism, on the other hand, depends on the rationality and good intentions of a few. Can we trust an entity outside of ourselves to decide over our lives? Its rule might be convenient to impose, but does this power not corrupt itself, and put a brake on creativity and progression?

In the absence of both individual responsibility and authoritarian structures, individuals (or groups) will eventually collide. We are now living in a period in which the perception exists that there is neither rule nor responsibility. A new balance needs to be found. If we do not want authoritarian reflexes to impose freedom reducing measures, we will need to bring the concepts of consideration and responsibility back into the debate. The electorate, though, might see this as another attempt by the political elite to ignore them. Most likely their demands for rectilinear solutions, and our desire to warrant social coherence, will come at the expense of civil liberties.